Some Gays Can Go Straight, Study Says

[Statler Waldorf]

https://www.macombdaily.com/2010/11/30/g...-to-minor/

Thanks for playing, Please collect your consolation prize at the door. AF does not validate parking.

I'll be praying for you.  Ramen

1. You said “my pastor”, and that’s not my pastor.
2. You’d be all for this if he claimed to be trans though right? Again, I am against this stuff regardless of who does it, you’re only against it if the person doing it is CIS.  Logical consistency please.

Trans people are now paedophiles?

The ones who engage in pedophilia are.  You really think that only CIS people can be pedophiles?  Seriously?  

I have looked into the training you have mentioned because you are not the first person to claim this. And you are simply not being honest.

You have to have a government issued LincPass to even access the training website.  You’re a liar.  

That's not sexualizing children and a playground and locker room are totally different things.

It is sexualizing children.  What about a locker room magically makes it ok for a biological male to expose himself to a little girl?  Have you even thought about what you are defending?  

If it's in a locker room and both parties are simply naked while changing there is no difference.

Again, children are not fair game for sexualizing just because it’s a locker room.   People who think like you are so dangerous.  

It's not okay for anyone to be nude in a playground. It's okay for people to be nude in the shower. This is kind of elementary  

You think it’s ok for an adult biological male to shower with a little girl?  

So you can't actually back this claim up...  

It's purely "Trust Me Bro"

You support biological adult men showering with little girls, should I care what else you think?

Detransitions are rare and their existence of them in a way invalidates Transpeople. This is a non-sequitur, And the fact at the present they present as trans is enough of a reason to respect their identity till they say otherwise or there is some reason to believe they are faking it.. So this is a weak complaint.

You misunderstanding the argument does not prove it’s a non-sequitur.  The fact that detransitions are rare is a non-sequitur however.  Is it possible for someone to believe they are trans and then no longer believe that later?  Simple question.  

A Transperson is no more automatically a pedophile. Then a CIS person is.

Where did I say they were?  

That's nice.  That doesn't answer my question, however.  Do you have an answer?

And I still would like to see some evidence for your position in terms of citations.  Do you have any, or should we conclude that you were just fantasizing?

I already gave you an example and you claimed it did not count without any reason given.  You have the same resources I have available to become informed on these events, your refusal to use them is telling though.  

Free Speech has limits and science overwhelmingly backs the validity of Transpeople.

Citation required.  Rules are rules.

Free Speech is always controlled and should always have limits like everything else. And Trans Men can most certainly have babies.

Citation required.  Rules are rules.  A woman can claim to be a man and have a baby, yes.  Men cannot have babies.  2+2 does not equal 5 and Eurasia has not always been at war with East Asia.

Who the heck cares what Hitchens would think? And nope no one has fallen in fact I would say the opposite. Because the atheist community has shed its reactionary elements. Most of them went off and became Christian Conservatives. Good Riddance.  

Wait, I thought atheism was simply the lack of belief in a god?  How could you try and pretend there is any shared ethos or even a “community” besides that?  Do you all live together?   Also, citation required.  

Nope it should be assigned by gender identity and the children don't factor in.Solved

Children don’t factor in at all?  They’re just sex objects huh?  Go back to ancient Greece.  

Yup and?

How do you know they’re really trans?  Citation needed.  

The existence of people who detransition in no way invalidates trans people.

Citation needed.   I don’t know what you mean by “invalidate transpoeple”, but it does certainly invalidate their argument.

[Nay_Sayer]

Why you buried my reply in a wall of text is beyond me. Your reply indicated I confused the pastor with priest as if only priests molest young kids.

Also, Why are you sexualizing children?

[The Architect Of Fate]

You have to have a government issued LincPass to even access the training website.  You’re a liar.  

No, you don't. So you are the one whose lying 

It is sexualizing children.  What about a locker room magically makes it ok for a biological male to expose himself to a little girl?  Have you even thought about what you are defending?

No, it is not the sexualization of children. A trans person getting naked in a place where people get naked is not sexualization. Yes, I have thought about it.  Clearly, more than you have. 

Again, children are not fair game for sexualizing just because it’s a locker room.   People who think like you are so dangerous.  

Using a locker room for the legitimate purpose it's used for is not sexualization.

You think it’s ok for an adult biological male to shower with a little girl?  

Yup. As long as that's all there doing why is that a problem?

You support biological adult men showering with little girls, should I care what else you think?

And you have yet to provide a single legitimate objection so why should I care what you think?

You misunderstanding the argument does not prove it’s a non-sequitur.  The fact that detransitions are rare is a non-sequitur however.  Is it possible for someone to believe they are trans and then no longer believe that later?  Simple question.  

No, I understood your argument fine and it is a non sequitur. The existence of  Detransitioners is not an argument against trans people. This is simply flawed reasoning.

Where did I say they were?  

 Consider the context you pretty much did.

Citation required.  Rules are rules.

Are you trying to argue that free speech has no limits? 

Citation required.  Rules are rules.  A woman can claim to be a man and have a baby, yes.  Men cannot have babies.  2+2 does not equal 5 and Eurasia has not always been at war with East Asia.

Transmen are men and that's the only citation I require. Sorry you don't like that 

Wait, I thought atheism was simply the lack of belief in a god?  How could you try and pretend there is any shared ethos or even a “community” besides that?  Do you all live together?   Also, citation required.  

It 's is that. By community, I'm clearly referring to people who just happen to lack a belief in god. What more citations would that require? 

Children don’t factor in at all?  They’re just sex objects huh?  Go back to ancient Greece.  

Yup, when it comes to transpeople using spaces based on their gender identity they don't factor in. You are the only one here who keeps bringing up sex and kids buddy That's very particular  

How do you know they’re really trans?  Citation needed.  

Because they told me. I know you don't like that answer. But i don't really care 

Citation needed.   I don’t know what you mean by “invalidate transpeople”, but it does certainly invalidate their argument.

No, it doesn't. Not even a little 

So are you done making a fool of yourself yet? 

[The Architect Of Fate]

I already gave you an example and you claimed it did not count without any reason given.  You have the same resources I have available to become informed on these events, your refusal to use them is telling though.  

You gave one example. That's not an argument. And then engage in a bunch of "look it up " because you've got nothing. 

[The Architect Of Fate]

Why you buried my reply in a wall of text is beyond me. Your reply indicated I confused the pastor with priest as if only priests molest young kids.

Also, Why are you sexualizing children?

We don't seem to attract the most galaxy-brained fundies, do we?

[Nay_Sayer]

Why you buried my reply in a wall of text is beyond me. Your reply indicated I confused the pastor with priest as if only priests molest young kids.

Also, Why are you sexualizing children?

We don't seem to attract the most galaxy-brained fundies, do we?

I'd say this is a mixture of fundie and troll; A..uh.. Trundie?

[The Architect Of Fate]

We don't seem to attract the most galaxy-brained fundies, do we?

I'd this is a mixture of fundie and troll; A..uh.. Trundie?

Fair assessment

[Rev. Rye]

It is sexualizing children.  What about a locker room magically makes it ok for a biological male to expose himself to a little girl?  Have you even thought about what you are defending?  

As strange as it may seem, nudity isn't automatically sexual. Granted, in most contexts, it's rightly frowned upon for an adult to show the kid their genitalia, but in some contexts, it's expected to be nude. In a locker room, it's not uncommon to catch a glimpse of someone else's genitalia, and, while it's not polite to stare, it's not a problem as long as the other person in question isn't trying to get other people to look at their genitalia (unless, of course the other person is an adult and is okay with looking at it). And funny thing, you brought up an interaction at the YMCA where a girl was shocked at having to see a trans man's genitalia. Decades ago, it was not only allowed, but MANDATORY to swim nude there. And, surprisingly, that wasn't considered sexual.

Detransitions are rare and their existence of them in a way invalidates Transpeople. This is a non-sequitur, And the fact at the present they present as trans is enough of a reason to respect their identity till they say otherwise or there is some reason to believe they are faking it.. So this is a weak complaint.

You misunderstanding the argument does not prove it’s a non-sequitur.  The fact that detransitions are rare is a non-sequitur however.  Is it possible for someone to believe they are trans and then no longer believe that later?  Simple question.  

Yes. And the possibility that someone might have had a different outward gender identity a couple of years ago is irrelevant to what locker room they should be using now. If they identify as male now but previously identified as female, it's okay to use a male locker room now.

Free Speech is always controlled and should always have limits like everything else. And Trans Men can most certainly have babies.

Citation required.  Rules are rules.  A woman can claim to be a man and have a baby, yes.  Men cannot have babies.  2+2 does not equal 5 and Eurasia has not always been at war with East Asia.

[Angrboda]

That's nice.  That doesn't answer my question, however.  Do you have an answer?

And I still would like to see some evidence for your position in terms of citations.  Do you have any, or should we conclude that you were just fantasizing?

I already gave you an example and you claimed it did not count without any reason given.  You have the same resources I have available to become informed on these events, your refusal to use them is telling though.  

The reason was given in post #184 in a direct response to your posting said example.

Where did I refuse to use the resources at my disposal to become better informed? I didn't. Post #184, in addition to supplying said reason, serves as direct rebuttal to your presumption as the information in said post was gained through becoming better informed using Google. Far from me refusing to use Google, it demonstrated that you don't use it particularly effectively, as it took all of five minutes to uncover the problems with your citation.

Now you're just making up shit left and right. You've gone from being tiresome and lame to an outright dishonest twat.

And you still haven't answered what your thoughts on Google have to do with anything. I'm guessing we're not going to ever know.

[Statler Waldorf]

Why you buried my reply in a wall of text is beyond me. Your reply indicated I confused the pastor with priest as if only priests molest young kids.

Also, Why are you sexualizing children?

Stop whining, you can read.  You provided one case, not impressed.
I think you’re getting me confused with the people on here condoning adult males showering with little girls.  

No, you don't. So you are the one whose lying

Citation needed.  You think the PDF document is the actual training?  You’re funny.

No, it is not the sexualization of children. A trans person getting naked in a place where people get naked is not sexualization. Yes, I have thought about it.  Clearly, more than you have.  

Thank God you’re in the minority on this stuff.  Most people condemn child abuse, even if it’s committed by someone who says they’re trans.  

Using a locker room for the legitimate purpose it's used for is not sexualization.

Women’s locker rooms were never intended to have biological males showering in them, hence the name, "Women's Locker Room".

Yup. As long as that's all there doing why is that a problem?

Males exposing themselves to little girls is sexual assault.  At least in America it is.

And you have yet to provide a single legitimate objection so why should I care what you think?

The fact it is child abuse is a good enough objection for me.  Again, remove God from morality and you end up with people condoning the murder of babies and sexual abuse of little girls.  

No, I understood your argument fine and it is a non sequitur. The existence of  Detransitioners is not an argument against trans people. This is simply flawed reasoning.

Baseless assertion, citation needed.

Consider the context you pretty much did.

Nope, I brought up pedophilia and your mind immediately thought I was talking about trans people, sounds like projection to me.

Are you trying to argue that free speech has no limits?  

I need a citation that in American law free speech is limited when dealing with preferred pronouns, especially if the use of said pronouns violates someone’s religious convictions.  Good luck.  

Transmen are men and that's the only citation I require. Sorry you don't like that  

I am apparently far more of a skeptic than you are.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Please provide your extraordinary evidence that transmen are actually men.  “They say so”, is not even evidence much less extraordinary evidence.  “I say so”, is even less evidence.  Real bush league.  

It 's is that. By community, I'm clearly referring to people who just happen to lack a belief in god. What more citations would that require?

I’ll need a citation proving that a majority of atheists possess something remotely resembling a shared ethos and then a citation demonstrating that a majority of them agree with you.  Not just white atheists either, worldwide here.  

Yup, when it comes to transpeople using spaces based on their gender identity they don't factor in. You are the only one here who keeps bringing up sex and kids buddy That's very particular  

That’s because an adult biological male exposing themself to a minor is SEXUAL assault.  You’re the one condoning child abuse, not me.  Apparently, you think it’s ok to sexually assault a child as long as it’s in the shower or something.  Gross stuff.  

Because they told me. I know you don't like that answer. But i don't really care  

Very scientific of you, and an anorexic is really obese because they tell you they are?  A person’s beliefs and feelings have no bearing on their ontology, that’s basic rationality.  

You gave one example. That's not an argument. And then engage in a bunch of "look it up " because you've got nothing.  

One example of sexual assault is too many isn’t it? I’ll provide more when you follow your own rules and start providing citations for your claims above.  Fair is fair.  

I'd say this is a mixture of fundie and troll; A..uh.. Trundie?

Nah, just expect some form of logical consistency from you all on here; I realize that’s a fool’s errand.  It is rather amusing to watch those who claim to be free and critical thinkers all parrot the same bad arguments without evidence simply because they are popular now.  “We believe in science, but men can get pregnant!”

As strange as it may seem, nudity isn't automatically sexual. Granted, in most contexts, it's rightly frowned upon for an adult to show the kid their genitalia, but in some contexts, it's expected to be nude. In a locker room, it's not uncommon to catch a glimpse of someone else's genitalia, and, while it's not polite to stare, it's not a problem as long as the other person in question isn't trying to get other people to look at their genitalia (unless, of course the other person is an adult and is okay with looking at it). And funny thing, you brought up an interaction at the YMCA where a girl was shocked at having to see a trans man's genitalia. Decades ago, it was not only allowed, but MANDATORY to swim nude there. And, surprisingly, that wasn't considered sexual.

Thanks for the reply, and giving it some thought.  How do we know who an actual transwoman is?  I am not sure appealing to past practice is all that morally relevant to this discussion.  

Yes. And the possibility that someone might have had a different outward gender identity a couple of years ago is irrelevant to what locker room they should be using now. If they identify as male now but previously identified as female, it's okay to use a male locker room now.

You believe someone can be trans and then not be trans?  That does not seem to be the position of most trans people in the media. They’re claiming they were assigned the wrong gender at birth.

Now you're just making up shit left and right. You've gone from being tiresome and lame to an outright dishonest twat.

And you still haven't answered what your thoughts on Google have to do with anything. I'm guessing we're not going to ever know.

This isn’t my first rodeo, I know this game you’re trying to play.  You’ll ask for citation after citation and arbitrarily dismiss each one because you do not like what they prove.  It’s an intellectually lazy game that wastes everyone else’s time.  It's interesting that you resort to using a term for a vagina as a means of demeaning someone.  I learned in my unconscious bias training at work that that means you have a prejudice against women or it’s a form of self-loathing if you are a woman.  Attack me all you want, does not offend me.  The fact you have not asked for a citation to support the dozens of assertions made on here by people who you agree with demonstrates you’re not a fair-minded individual and therefore are owed nothing from me.  If you have to play a game with two different sets of rules, then you’re not very good at the game you play